Just to throw another possibly-overlooked variable into the mess: My system here is using the on-demand cpufreq policy governor. I wonder how that interacts with the various schedulers here? I suppose for the "make" kernel case, after a couple of seconds the cpufreq would hit max and stay there for the rest of the build, so it shouldn't really be a factor for (non-)interactivity during the build. Or should it? Cheers - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- References:
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: William Lee Irwin III <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Renice X for cpu schedulers
- From: Con Kolivas <[email protected]>
- Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
- Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
- Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- From: Mark Lord <[email protected]>
- Re: [Announce] [patch] Modular Scheduler Core and Completely Fair Scheduler [CFS]
- Prev by Date: Re: [BUG? -rc7] SMP: Just one CPU activated: P4 3GHz HT
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Remove "obsolete" label from ISDN4Linux (v3)
- Previous by thread: Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- Next by thread: Re: Renice X for cpu schedulers
- Index(es):
 |